Page 3 of 6 [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

21 Nov 2012, 5:38 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
JNathanK wrote:


Now, the issue with democracy is that democracy really isn't necessarily an efficient way to run things, and often it isn't. Democracies are better for inputting values, but they are not good for policies, as the members of a democracy are usually not all experts. Instead, when implementing policies, you're better off delegating the task to the experts on that, and individual workers often have goals that are contrary to the good of the firm, and where they benefit by firm decisions that hurt the group. Democracy ends up having significant incentive problems where one group strongly benefits and others are only slightly hurt. It's not a magical solution, and it's not a solution desirable to implement in every possible domain. (Nor is a society un or anti-democratic because it doesn't implement democracy literally everywhere)


"Experts" often live in the world of abstraction. Often times management will make decisions that overtax workers, like under-staff a facility for profit or sell off a factory for profit and max out the capacity at another. The decisions they make have less to do with how peoples lives are affected and more to do with personal profit. CEO's might not directly run factories, but they'll make major decisions that affect the lives of millions of people, like opting to close down a plant. One things for sure. In a workplace democracy, nobody is going to vote to have their own job shipped overseas, anymore than a CEO would choose to have their own 6-8 figure position outsourced to someone else. Since the CEO is so detached and they make broad decisions, they don't really care if a bunch of people are put out of work so that their company can increase its incomes by taking advantage of sweat shop labor.

A corporation, in its current form, is a totalitarian, top-down institution. Give them enough power, and we'll be living a totalitarian society.



Last edited by JNathanK on 21 Nov 2012, 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

21 Nov 2012, 5:41 pm

marshall wrote:
That depends on your definition of anti-capitalism. If you're talking about utopian radicals, yes. If you're talking about critics of market liberalism, no. There are plenty of highly intelligent people making a strong case for there being holes in the basic assumptions and logic of a lot of mainstream economic thought. A lot of modern economists acknowledge these holes and modify their theory to account for them, but a lot of critics claim they still don't go far enough.


Yah, I really hate how some people want to conflate Keynesianism with radical leftist politics.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

21 Nov 2012, 5:52 pm

thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
The choice of thread title is unfortunate.

This is the phenomenon which the OP is referring to :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery


Yes, an ideological concept not taken seriously by current mainstream economics.

.


Why would they when afforementioned economists stand to benefit from the existing set up.

Wage slavery is firmly grounded in the empirical experiences of those effected by it.

The rules of concepts you subscribe to, are like the rules of a game where one team has access to the rule book and the impunity to delete and edit as they see fit.


No. Your approach demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of even the basics of empirical economics.

You have again and again demonstrated that you lack insight in the subjects that you focus on. Not just economics, but also Maoist China or Islam (nice one with the "no Jihadi attacks against Hindus, BTW. Don't you watch/read the news?).

You have zero scientific credibility so far. If you want to change that, then start citing actual peer-reviewed studies rather than peddling predictable Marxist pseudoscience and citing predictable partisan websites.

The frequency of fringe nonsense theories about economics being posted on WP baffles the brain...



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

21 Nov 2012, 5:58 pm

I have responded to your link about the mumbai bombings.

The rest of your post is just a strawman not worth acknowledging.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

21 Nov 2012, 6:04 pm

thomas81 wrote:
I have responded to your link about the mumbai bombings.

The rest of your post is just a strawman not worth acknowledging.


Yes, I have noticed how the socialist/communist WP posters try to squirm their way out of debates when I ask for peer-reviewed economic evidence... Perhaps your instinct for self-preservation finally acknowledged that I am vastly more informed on economics than you are?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Nov 2012, 6:09 pm

RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
Seabass wrote:
The title of this thread is correct, there are slaves in this world as we speak. But then you had to ruin it with your biased little rant. My turn, I think socialist principles have caused the bondage of more slaves then true capitalism. Especially since a true, libertarian for of capitalism has never existed. You can try to argue that, but I see no point.

I find it hilarious that market libertarians and socialists do the exact same thing. There has never been "true free-market capitalism" just like there has never been "true communism". In no way do such claims show that your more "pure" ideology will ever actually work in the real world. Come up with real arguments instead of regurgitating things you hear.


Here is a plain fact. Slavery is illegal in the United States and it is NOT illegal in Saudi Arabia. Guess where most of the slavery is?

ruveyn

It's chattel slavery that's illegal.


That is the only kind of slavery. Employment is not slavery because there is no legal compulsion to take a job, nor is physical force or threat thereof used to make any take any particular job. Also anyone holding a job is free to quite.

The existential condition of having to work for one's bread is not slavery. It is the human condition. People have always had to do some kind of labor to receive their sustainance. The fact there we cannot turn inorganic chemicals into food with the aid of sunlight is not slavery. Humans must grow their food, hunt their food or trade their labor or goods for food. That is not slavery. That is reality.

ruveyn



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

21 Nov 2012, 6:12 pm

GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
I have responded to your link about the mumbai bombings.

The rest of your post is just a strawman not worth acknowledging.


Yes, I have noticed how the socialist/communist WP posters try to squirm their way out of debates when I ask for peer-reviewed economic evidence... Perhaps your instinct for self-preservation finally acknowledged that I am vastly more informed on economics than you are?


When you say peer-reviewed economic evidence what you really mean is spun regurgitated rubbish from the mainstream media concocted by whatever hackneyed rentagob is the flavour of the hour.

Sorry, but i have as much distrust for these sources as you do of 'partisan pseudoscience Marxist websites'.

In the words of George Orwell, 'in times of great deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'.

FYI : I'm not a communist.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

21 Nov 2012, 6:15 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The existential condition of having to work for one's bread is not slavery. It is the human condition. People have always had to do some kind of labor to receive their sustainance. The fact there we cannot turn inorganic chemicals into food with the aid of sunlight is not slavery. Humans must grow their food, hunt their food or trade their labor or goods for food. That is not slavery. That is reality.

ruveyn


My grievance isn't with work. Its the concept of work for works sake. Particularly when better means of doing the same job are readilly available. My grievance also lies with the associated adversity-privilege paradigm passed from generation to generation. My grievance lies with otherwise skilled people having to languish in ill paid, mind numbing jobs being robbed of the opportunity to utilise the talents that nature has given them.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Nov 2012, 6:20 pm

thomas81 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

The existential condition of having to work for one's bread is not slavery. It is the human condition. People have always had to do some kind of labor to receive their sustainance. The fact there we cannot turn inorganic chemicals into food with the aid of sunlight is not slavery. Humans must grow their food, hunt their food or trade their labor or goods for food. That is not slavery. That is reality.

ruveyn


My grievance isn't with work. Its the concept of work for works sake. Particularly when better means of doing the same job are readilly available. My grievance also lies with the associated adversity-privilege paradigm passed from generation to generation. My grievance lies with otherwise skilled people having to languish in ill paid, mind numbing jobs being robbed of the opportunity to utilise the talents that nature has given them.


Then that person could go off and live in the country and pick berries. Or he could figure out something he could do that would be more fun. None of what you are complaining about involves force or the threat of force. The problem here is with social convention. There is a solution. Flout social convention.

ruveyn



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

21 Nov 2012, 6:22 pm

thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
I have responded to your link about the mumbai bombings.

The rest of your post is just a strawman not worth acknowledging.


Yes, I have noticed how the socialist/communist WP posters try to squirm their way out of debates when I ask for peer-reviewed economic evidence... Perhaps your instinct for self-preservation finally acknowledged that I am vastly more informed on economics than you are?


When you say peer-reviewed economic evidence what you really mean is spun regurgitated rubbish from the mainstream media concocted by whatever hackneyed rentagob is the flavour of the hour.

Sorry, but i have as much distrust for these sources as you do of 'partisan pseudoscience Marxist websites'.

In the words of George Orwell, 'in times of great deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'.

FYI : I'm not a communist.


You clearly lack even a rudimentary understanding of the concept of science.

If you believe that a scientific journal has fallen short of the scientific method when accepting an article, then please provide examples. The claim can then be either not rejected or rejected using the method of falsification.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

21 Nov 2012, 6:24 pm

ruveyn wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

The existential condition of having to work for one's bread is not slavery. It is the human condition. People have always had to do some kind of labor to receive their sustainance. The fact there we cannot turn inorganic chemicals into food with the aid of sunlight is not slavery. Humans must grow their food, hunt their food or trade their labor or goods for food. That is not slavery. That is reality.

ruveyn


My grievance isn't with work. Its the concept of work for works sake. Particularly when better means of doing the same job are readilly available. My grievance also lies with the associated adversity-privilege paradigm passed from generation to generation. My grievance lies with otherwise skilled people having to languish in ill paid, mind numbing jobs being robbed of the opportunity to utilise the talents that nature has given them.


Then that person could go off and live in the country and pick berries. Or he could figure out something he could do that would be more fun. None of what you are complaining about involves force or the threat of force. The problem here is with social convention. There is a solution. Flout social convention.

ruveyn

Retreating to the country as a berry picker would be a greater practice in self destruction than participating in the current society. Society can only get better when it realises that united in a capacity of equals it can become greater than the sum of its individual units. That requires the participation of everybody.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

21 Nov 2012, 6:27 pm

GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
I have responded to your link about the mumbai bombings.

The rest of your post is just a strawman not worth acknowledging.


Yes, I have noticed how the socialist/communist WP posters try to squirm their way out of debates when I ask for peer-reviewed economic evidence... Perhaps your instinct for self-preservation finally acknowledged that I am vastly more informed on economics than you are?


When you say peer-reviewed economic evidence what you really mean is spun regurgitated rubbish from the mainstream media concocted by whatever hackneyed rentagob is the flavour of the hour.

Sorry, but i have as much distrust for these sources as you do of 'partisan pseudoscience Marxist websites'.

In the words of George Orwell, 'in times of great deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'.

FYI : I'm not a communist.


You clearly lack even a rudimentary understanding of the concept of science.

If you believe that a scientific journal has fallen short of the scientific method when accepting an article, then please provide examples. The claim can then be either not rejected or rejected using the method of falsification.


I follow Marxism is as much that i am subscriber of dialetic materialism and that i concur with his theories on the alienation of labour.

I do not care much for the input of the conventional economic community because of their shady motives and their lack of a broader perspective on the social side of their own discipline.

Besides which mainstream economics bores the crap out of me. We need to transfer to a resource based system.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Nov 2012, 6:28 pm

marshall wrote:
That depends on your definition of anti-capitalism. <snip>

When I say "anti-capitalism", I mean opposition the existence of a capitalist system, and an effort to remove it rather than reform it. Does that clarify things? I get the feeling that everything else you said is pretty close to nullified by that clarification. I mean, I can oppose some aspects of it, but I think it's largely irrelevant.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Nov 2012, 6:37 pm

blackelk wrote:
The problem is that economics is a pseudoscience that is treated like a real science. It is closer to an ideology.

Right, because I'm sure you've spent a lot of time researching it.

Economics is a social science. It's not an ideology, and economists of different ideologies frequently can have meaningful discussions and use similar frameworks for solving some of the same problems.

The Taleb quote is pretty useless for your point, as you're somehow operating on the assumption that most of economics is really macroeconomic predictions, when it really isn't. Because it isn't, referring to failed economic predictions does nothing to discredit the field, especially given that macroeconomics used for predictions is pretty different than the rest of the body of knowledge. So, the meat and bones of economics is really microeconomics, and microeconomics actually has a lot of very good predictive theories.

Also, your comment on Marxism is pretty deeply questionable because of how Marxism has failed in the theory of value, but also generally failed to provide a strong research program. People are Marxists out of ideology, but people are capitalists out of pragmatism given their background knowledge. I mean, we can go into a huge dissection on how all of this stuff works and interrelates, but really, you're just using bare assertions and pretending that economics is a pomo fest rather than a discipline that's actually growing and trying to do what it can.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Nov 2012, 6:44 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Why would they when afforementioned economists stand to benefit from the existing set up.

So, the entire class of individuals is so enraptured? That's probably not likely, especially given that many of the more important economists are academics, and as academics they'll benefit from *any* set up so long as they are politically relevant. Even further, economists have taken many different ideological positions over history, the strong move towards markets is largely due to the loss of the USSR during the Cold War, and the rise of the neoclassical school.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

21 Nov 2012, 6:45 pm

thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
I have responded to your link about the mumbai bombings.

The rest of your post is just a strawman not worth acknowledging.


Yes, I have noticed how the socialist/communist WP posters try to squirm their way out of debates when I ask for peer-reviewed economic evidence... Perhaps your instinct for self-preservation finally acknowledged that I am vastly more informed on economics than you are?


When you say peer-reviewed economic evidence what you really mean is spun regurgitated rubbish from the mainstream media concocted by whatever hackneyed rentagob is the flavour of the hour.

Sorry, but i have as much distrust for these sources as you do of 'partisan pseudoscience Marxist websites'.

In the words of George Orwell, 'in times of great deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'.

FYI : I'm not a communist.


You clearly lack even a rudimentary understanding of the concept of science.

If you believe that a scientific journal has fallen short of the scientific method when accepting an article, then please provide examples. The claim can then be either not rejected or rejected using the method of falsification.


I follow Marxism is as much that i am subscriber of dialetic materialism and that i concur with his theories on the alienation of labour.

I do not care much for the input of the conventional economic community because of their shady motives and their lack of a broader perspective on the social side of their own discipline.


And I follow the principles laid down by scientific giants like Karl Popper who rejected Marxism (and its BS terms) because of its pseudo-scientific content.

And your perspective on the so-called "lack of a broader perspective on the social side of their own discipline" is probably due to your lack of insight in the actual economic studies, and not a lack of actual economic studies. I recommend Becker, Arrow, Sen and Buchanan...

No one with any respect for science even bothers with the Hegelian-Marxist concept of "dialectical materialism". It is pure BS.